Sunday, April 16, 2017

Judith Curry on the current state of climate science

Judith Curry STATEMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Hearing on Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method
29 March 2017

Science is an iterative process of multi hypothesis formation, collecting data and testing that data against the variety of hypotheses

Beware of dogmatic claims (alarmists, deniers), be sensitive to the uncertainty and complexity of the climate science issue

Explanation of the how and why we have got to a bad place in climate science (page 11, extract below)

There is a war on science - not from Trump but from within the science establishment itself (page 12, extract below)

How and why did we land between a rock and a hard place on the issue of climate science?

There are
probably many contributing reasons, but the most fundamental and profound reason is arguably that both
the problem and solution were vastly oversimplified back in the early 1990’s by the UNFCCC, who
framed both the problem and the solution as irreducibly global in terms of human-caused global warming.
This framing was locked in by a self-reinforcing consensus-seeking approach to the science and a
‘speaking consensus to power’ approach for decision making that pointed to a single course of policy
action – radical emissions reductions.

The climate community has worked for more than two decades to establish a scientific consensus on
human-caused climate change, prematurely elevating a hypothesis to a ruling theory. The IPCC’s
consensus-seeking process and its links to the UNFCCC emissions reduction policies have had the
unintended consequence of hyper-politicizing the science and introducing bias into both the science and
related decision making processes. The result of this simplified framing of a wicked problem is that we
lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities.
The politicization of climate science has contaminated academic climate research and the institutions that
support climate research, so that individual scientists and institutions have become activists and advocates
for emissions reductions policies. Scientists with a perspective that is not consistent with the consensus
are at best marginalized (difficult to obtain funding and get papers published by ‘gatekeeping’ journal
editors) or at worst ostracized by labels of ‘denier’ or ‘heretic.’

Policymakers bear the responsibility of the mandate that they give to panels of scientific experts. In the
case of climate change, the UNFCCC demanded of the IPCC too much precision where complexity,
chaos, disagreement and the level current understanding resists such precision. Asking scientists to
provide simple policy-ready answers for complex matters results in an impossible situation for scientists
and misleading outcomes for policy makers. Unless policy makers want experts to confirm their
preconceived bias, then expert panels should handle controversies and uncertainties by assessing what we
know, what we don’t know, and where the major uncertainties lie....

War on Science

With the advent of the Trump administration, concerns about ‘war on science’ have become elevated,
with a planned March for Science on 22 April 2017. Why are scientists marching? The scientists’ big
concern is ‘silencing of facts’. This concern apparently derives from their desire to have their negotiated
‘facts’ – such as the IPCC consensus on climate change – dictate public policy. These scientists also fear
funding cuts and challenges to the academic scientific community and the elite institutions that support it.

The ‘war on science’ that I am most concerned about is the war from within science – scientists and the
organizations that support science who are playing power politics with their expertise and passing off
their naïve notions of risk and political opinions as science. When the IPCC consensus is challenged or
the authority of climate science in determining energy policy is questioned, these activist scientists and
organizations call the questioners ‘deniers’ and claim ‘war on science.’ These activist scientists seem less
concerned with the integrity of the scientific process than they are about their privileged position and
influence in the public debate about climate and energy policy. They do not argue or debate the science –
rather, they denigrate scientists who disagree with them. These activist scientists and organizations are
perverting the political process and attempting to inoculate climate science from scrutiny – this is the real
war on science.

2 comments:

Thank you bill. That is a breath of fresh air. BTW I miss you! Hope you are enjoying life (as I am).Anita is in Melb. Connor is in Canberra on 10 day scout trip over ANZAC period. Erin is across in WA caving (both paid for by busking on that triple unicycle you bought them!). Erin has labrithitis and can't balance at the moment. Shannon is busy being a Tafe student and about to join the police force (I blame the mother). I am currently left to my own devices so I am cleaning. How exciting does it get???

Just watching the ABC propagandise on the latest scam to put a price on carbon. Chief Scientist Finkel! Not a penny towards research. Just up the price and lie about it. Looks like Bolt (who just got assaulted by 3 gutless psudoleftists) is going to have a field day!

I doubt that this 'carbon tax' will be stopped! It looks like it's in Shortens interests to back this. Anyway at least the Bolt type rightists can look like honest people. Nothing to see on the left.